Services

Sussex MPs split over gay marriage vote

GAY marriage plans have been backed by MPs – with Sussex representatives split on the issue.

The House of Commons backed the legislation by 400-175.

Politicians from across the country spent yesterday debating a bill to allow same-sex couples to get married in both civil and religious ceremonies.

After a lengthy debate which lasted all afternoon, MPs passed the agreement onto the next stage of the law-making process.

Speaking against the bill, Tim Loughton, East Worthing and Shoreham MP, said: “Is the problem not a lack of equality in the law but a lack of equality in society?”

“It should be about equal respect.”

Mr Loughton said the Government had not acted on other inequalities, such as the appointment of women bishops, as it was “simply bad politics”.

He added: “I do not claim that my Christian marriage is any different to a civil partnership.

“We need to get away from the view that we need to have the same to be equal.”

'Important institution'

Nick Herbert, MP for Arundel and South Downs, said: “Marriage is one of the most important institutions in the country “While we have huge sections of society moving away from marriage, here we have one group moving towards it.

“Here we have one section of society that wants to embrace commitment.

“Defenders of marriage should be grateful and opening the doors.”

He added: “I would not vote for this bill unless I believed it protected religious freedom.”

'Momentous occasion'

The bill will legalise gay marriage and enables same-sex couples to get married in both civil and religious ceremonies, where a religious institution had formally consented, in England and Wales.

It will also allow couples who had previously entered into civil partnerships to convert their relationship into a marriage.

Conservative and Labour MPs have been given a free vote on the bill but the debate around same-sex marriage has opened up significant differences within the Brighton Pavilion MP Caroline Lucas said: “While the Conservative catfight over the vote will fade into insignificance, the momentous occasion on which MPs were given the chance to stand up for equality in marriage will be remembered for many years to come.

“However, while I’ll be voting for equal marriage, I’ll also be calling for more far reaching reform to allow everyone – same sex and opposite sex couples – to enjoy a civil partnership or marriage, as they choose.

“This is a question of equal love. It’s not about asking for special treatment for gay couples or straight couples, it’s about everyone enjoying the same rights regardless of their sexuality.”

Comments

Cyril Bolleaux
8:44am Wed 6 Feb 13

Lucas is wrong as usual. Every has the same rights at present. It is about changing the definition of marriage. It is significant that people who are usually hostile to marriage have supported this measure. They recognise it will weaken marriage. We have already seen that in the Green Party you are forbidden from exercising your conscience on this issue. The next step will be legalising the practice of men purchasing babies and depriving them of their mothers.

Lucas is wrong as usual. Every has the same rights at present. It is about changing the definition of marriage. It is significant that people who are usually hostile to marriage have supported this measure. They recognise it will weaken marriage. We have already seen that in the Green Party you are forbidden from exercising your conscience on this issue. The next step will be legalising the practice of men purchasing babies and depriving them of their mothers.Cyril Bolleaux

Lucas is wrong as usual. Every has the same rights at present. It is about changing the definition of marriage. It is significant that people who are usually hostile to marriage have supported this measure. They recognise it will weaken marriage. We have already seen that in the Green Party you are forbidden from exercising your conscience on this issue. The next step will be legalising the practice of men purchasing babies and depriving them of their mothers.

Score: 0

Andy R
9:00am Wed 6 Feb 13

Cyril Bolleaux wrote…

Lucas is wrong as usual. Every has the same rights at present. It is about changing the definition of marriage. It is significant that people who are usually hostile to marriage have supported this measure. They recognise it will weaken marriage. We have already seen that in the Green Party you are forbidden from exercising your conscience on this issue. The next step will be legalising the practice of men purchasing babies and depriving them of their mothers.

Please.....no-one report this post. It's offensive, but also too deeply hilarious to lose.....

[quote][p][bold]Cyril Bolleaux[/bold] wrote:
Lucas is wrong as usual. Every has the same rights at present. It is about changing the definition of marriage. It is significant that people who are usually hostile to marriage have supported this measure. They recognise it will weaken marriage. We have already seen that in the Green Party you are forbidden from exercising your conscience on this issue. The next step will be legalising the practice of men purchasing babies and depriving them of their mothers.[/p][/quote]Please.....no-one report this post. It's offensive, but also too deeply hilarious to lose.....Andy R

Cyril Bolleaux wrote…

Lucas is wrong as usual. Every has the same rights at present. It is about changing the definition of marriage. It is significant that people who are usually hostile to marriage have supported this measure. They recognise it will weaken marriage. We have already seen that in the Green Party you are forbidden from exercising your conscience on this issue. The next step will be legalising the practice of men purchasing babies and depriving them of their mothers.

Please.....no-one report this post. It's offensive, but also too deeply hilarious to lose.....

Score: 0

inadaptado
9:12am Wed 6 Feb 13

Andy R wrote…

Cyril Bolleaux wrote…

Lucas is wrong as usual. Every has the same rights at present. It is about changing the definition of marriage. It is significant that people who are usually hostile to marriage have supported this measure. They recognise it will weaken marriage. We have already seen that in the Green Party you are forbidden from exercising your conscience on this issue. The next step will be legalising the practice of men purchasing babies and depriving them of their mothers.

Please.....no-one report this post. It's offensive, but also too deeply hilarious to lose.....

The whole debate was pure comedy gold. "I'm not a bigot, it's just there's more important things to deal with right now". "I'm not intolerant, I'm voting no because this was not in the program". "I'm not homophobic, but my proposition to give straight couples more tax relief than gay couples was rejected".

[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Cyril Bolleaux[/bold] wrote:
Lucas is wrong as usual. Every has the same rights at present. It is about changing the definition of marriage. It is significant that people who are usually hostile to marriage have supported this measure. They recognise it will weaken marriage. We have already seen that in the Green Party you are forbidden from exercising your conscience on this issue. The next step will be legalising the practice of men purchasing babies and depriving them of their mothers.[/p][/quote]Please.....no-one report this post. It's offensive, but also too deeply hilarious to lose.....[/p][/quote]The whole debate was pure comedy gold. "I'm not a bigot, it's just there's more important things to deal with right now". "I'm not intolerant, I'm voting no because this was not in the program". "I'm not homophobic, but my proposition to give straight couples more tax relief than gay couples was rejected".inadaptado

Andy R wrote…

Cyril Bolleaux wrote…

Lucas is wrong as usual. Every has the same rights at present. It is about changing the definition of marriage. It is significant that people who are usually hostile to marriage have supported this measure. They recognise it will weaken marriage. We have already seen that in the Green Party you are forbidden from exercising your conscience on this issue. The next step will be legalising the practice of men purchasing babies and depriving them of their mothers.

Please.....no-one report this post. It's offensive, but also too deeply hilarious to lose.....

The whole debate was pure comedy gold. "I'm not a bigot, it's just there's more important things to deal with right now". "I'm not intolerant, I'm voting no because this was not in the program". "I'm not homophobic, but my proposition to give straight couples more tax relief than gay couples was rejected".

Score: 0

Cyril Bolleaux
9:17am Wed 6 Feb 13

Andy R wrote…

Cyril Bolleaux wrote…

Lucas is wrong as usual. Every has the same rights at present. It is about changing the definition of marriage. It is significant that people who are usually hostile to marriage have supported this measure. They recognise it will weaken marriage. We have already seen that in the Green Party you are forbidden from exercising your conscience on this issue. The next step will be legalising the practice of men purchasing babies and depriving them of their mothers.

Please.....no-one report this post. It's offensive, but also too deeply hilarious to lose.....

What is offensive about it? If you are referring to the last sentence then this is already happening.

[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Cyril Bolleaux[/bold] wrote: Lucas is wrong as usual. Every has the same rights at present. It is about changing the definition of marriage. It is significant that people who are usually hostile to marriage have supported this measure. They recognise it will weaken marriage. We have already seen that in the Green Party you are forbidden from exercising your conscience on this issue. The next step will be legalising the practice of men purchasing babies and depriving them of their mothers.[/p][/quote]Please.....no-one report this post. It's offensive, but also too deeply hilarious to lose.....[/p][/quote]What is offensive about it? If you are referring to the last sentence then this is already happening.Cyril Bolleaux

Andy R wrote…

Cyril Bolleaux wrote…

Lucas is wrong as usual. Every has the same rights at present. It is about changing the definition of marriage. It is significant that people who are usually hostile to marriage have supported this measure. They recognise it will weaken marriage. We have already seen that in the Green Party you are forbidden from exercising your conscience on this issue. The next step will be legalising the practice of men purchasing babies and depriving them of their mothers.

Please.....no-one report this post. It's offensive, but also too deeply hilarious to lose.....

What is offensive about it? If you are referring to the last sentence then this is already happening.

Score: 0

Andy R
10:12am Wed 6 Feb 13

Cyril Bolleaux wrote…

Andy R wrote…

Cyril Bolleaux wrote…

Lucas is wrong as usual. Every has the same rights at present. It is about changing the definition of marriage. It is significant that people who are usually hostile to marriage have supported this measure. They recognise it will weaken marriage. We have already seen that in the Green Party you are forbidden from exercising your conscience on this issue. The next step will be legalising the practice of men purchasing babies and depriving them of their mothers.

Please.....no-one report this post. It's offensive, but also too deeply hilarious to lose.....

What is offensive about it? If you are referring to the last sentence then this is already happening.

One assumes you are referring to surrogacy? This is legal in the UK and has been for some time. All sorts of people have become parents through surrogacy. The fact that you only regard it as an issue if a gay couple do it tells its own story.......

[quote][p][bold]Cyril Bolleaux[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyril Bolleaux[/bold] wrote: Lucas is wrong as usual. Every has the same rights at present. It is about changing the definition of marriage. It is significant that people who are usually hostile to marriage have supported this measure. They recognise it will weaken marriage. We have already seen that in the Green Party you are forbidden from exercising your conscience on this issue. The next step will be legalising the practice of men purchasing babies and depriving them of their mothers.[/p][/quote]Please.....no-one report this post. It's offensive, but also too deeply hilarious to lose.....[/p][/quote]What is offensive about it? If you are referring to the last sentence then this is already happening.[/p][/quote]One assumes you are referring to surrogacy? This is legal in the UK and has been for some time. All sorts of people have become parents through surrogacy. The fact that you only regard it as an issue if a gay couple do it tells its own story.......Andy R

Cyril Bolleaux wrote…

Andy R wrote…

Cyril Bolleaux wrote…

Lucas is wrong as usual. Every has the same rights at present. It is about changing the definition of marriage. It is significant that people who are usually hostile to marriage have supported this measure. They recognise it will weaken marriage. We have already seen that in the Green Party you are forbidden from exercising your conscience on this issue. The next step will be legalising the practice of men purchasing babies and depriving them of their mothers.

Please.....no-one report this post. It's offensive, but also too deeply hilarious to lose.....

What is offensive about it? If you are referring to the last sentence then this is already happening.

One assumes you are referring to surrogacy? This is legal in the UK and has been for some time. All sorts of people have become parents through surrogacy. The fact that you only regard it as an issue if a gay couple do it tells its own story.......

Score: 0

Tailgaters Anonymous
10:22am Wed 6 Feb 13

Hear, hear!!
Care little about this debate but Cameron clearly seeking to deflect from his and Osborne's crass mismanagement of the economy and any serious decisions that are needed to get the country functioning in the way it needs to!
Shows the Tory Party in complete disarray and Cameron supported not only by LibDems but Labour MPs too!!
Priceless!

Hear, hear!!
Care little about this debate but Cameron clearly seeking to deflect from his and Osborne's crass mismanagement of the economy and any serious decisions that are needed to get the country functioning in the way it needs to!
Shows the Tory Party in complete disarray and Cameron supported not only by LibDems but Labour MPs too!!
Priceless!Tailgaters Anonymous

Hear, hear!!
Care little about this debate but Cameron clearly seeking to deflect from his and Osborne's crass mismanagement of the economy and any serious decisions that are needed to get the country functioning in the way it needs to!
Shows the Tory Party in complete disarray and Cameron supported not only by LibDems but Labour MPs too!!
Priceless!

Score: 0

saraman
10:24am Wed 6 Feb 13

All of the nations MPs should have posted online a simple questionaire with one simple question. Do you want your MP to vote yes or no for gay marriages? Which ever way the vote went the MP would vote in parliament accordingly. This was too big and issue for MPs to vote on in line with their own way of thinking. Myself, I find homosexuality totally abhorant but would never condemn anyone for their chosen lifestyle. In this case though, marriage in the sense of the word should be for hetrosexuals only.

All of the nations MPs should have posted online a simple questionaire with one simple question. Do you want your MP to vote yes or no for gay marriages? Which ever way the vote went the MP would vote in parliament accordingly. This was too big and issue for MPs to vote on in line with their own way of thinking. Myself, I find homosexuality totally abhorant but would never condemn anyone for their chosen lifestyle. In this case though, marriage in the sense of the word should be for hetrosexuals only.saraman

All of the nations MPs should have posted online a simple questionaire with one simple question. Do you want your MP to vote yes or no for gay marriages? Which ever way the vote went the MP would vote in parliament accordingly. This was too big and issue for MPs to vote on in line with their own way of thinking. Myself, I find homosexuality totally abhorant but would never condemn anyone for their chosen lifestyle. In this case though, marriage in the sense of the word should be for hetrosexuals only.

Score: 0

sound_man
10:43am Wed 6 Feb 13

Tim Loughton voting against it. No big big surprise. He also voted against fox hunting with dogs.

I honestly don't feel he represents his constituents very well.
It's such a conservative strong hold that any tory muppet they put stand for that seat, they will win in it.

Tim Loughton voting against it. No big big surprise. He also voted against fox hunting with dogs.
I honestly don't feel he represents his constituents very well.
It's such a conservative strong hold that any tory muppet they put stand for that seat, they will win in it.sound_man

Tim Loughton voting against it. No big big surprise. He also voted against fox hunting with dogs.

I honestly don't feel he represents his constituents very well.
It's such a conservative strong hold that any tory muppet they put stand for that seat, they will win in it.

Score: 0

Number Six
11:20am Wed 6 Feb 13

saraman wrote…

All of the nations MPs should have posted online a simple questionaire with one simple question. Do you want your MP to vote yes or no for gay marriages? Which ever way the vote went the MP would vote in parliament accordingly. This was too big and issue for MPs to vote on in line with their own way of thinking. Myself, I find homosexuality totally abhorant but would never condemn anyone for their chosen lifestyle. In this case though, marriage in the sense of the word should be for hetrosexuals only.

Too big an issue? I can't think of anything more mind numbingly unimportant. Then again, I'm not gay and I'm not Christian so it's nothing to do with me.

We elect MPs to vote in Parliament on our behalf. If each and every one of us is going to tell each and every MP how to vote (and how would that work with all those who neither have nor want internet?) on every issue you would cause chaos. If you feel strongly enough you can always write or ring him.

[quote][p][bold]saraman[/bold] wrote:
All of the nations MPs should have posted online a simple questionaire with one simple question. Do you want your MP to vote yes or no for gay marriages? Which ever way the vote went the MP would vote in parliament accordingly. This was too big and issue for MPs to vote on in line with their own way of thinking. Myself, I find homosexuality totally abhorant but would never condemn anyone for their chosen lifestyle. In this case though, marriage in the sense of the word should be for hetrosexuals only.[/p][/quote]Too big an issue? I can't think of anything more mind numbingly unimportant. Then again, I'm not gay and I'm not Christian so it's nothing to do with me.
We elect MPs to vote in Parliament on our behalf. If each and every one of us is going to tell each and every MP how to vote (and how would that work with all those who neither have nor want internet?) on every issue you would cause chaos. If you feel strongly enough you can always write or ring him.Number Six

saraman wrote…

All of the nations MPs should have posted online a simple questionaire with one simple question. Do you want your MP to vote yes or no for gay marriages? Which ever way the vote went the MP would vote in parliament accordingly. This was too big and issue for MPs to vote on in line with their own way of thinking. Myself, I find homosexuality totally abhorant but would never condemn anyone for their chosen lifestyle. In this case though, marriage in the sense of the word should be for hetrosexuals only.

Too big an issue? I can't think of anything more mind numbingly unimportant. Then again, I'm not gay and I'm not Christian so it's nothing to do with me.

We elect MPs to vote in Parliament on our behalf. If each and every one of us is going to tell each and every MP how to vote (and how would that work with all those who neither have nor want internet?) on every issue you would cause chaos. If you feel strongly enough you can always write or ring him.

Score: 0

mmmm cakes
12:01pm Wed 6 Feb 13

saraman wrote…

All of the nations MPs should have posted online a simple questionaire with one simple question. Do you want your MP to vote yes or no for gay marriages? Which ever way the vote went the MP would vote in parliament accordingly. This was too big and issue for MPs to vote on in line with their own way of thinking. Myself, I find homosexuality totally abhorant but would never condemn anyone for their chosen lifestyle. In this case though, marriage in the sense of the word should be for hetrosexuals only.

My friend, if you have 'chosen' your sexuality then I feel you need help dealing with your suppressed bisexual or homosexual feeling.

Sexuality is not chosen, a gay person cannot help being gay as much as you cannot help being straight.

In 20 years time people will look back on this as such a non issue and grand children will look upon their grandparents with same embarrassment that people do with the racist older generation of today.

I'm proud the majority of MPs chose to stand on the right side of history.

[quote][p][bold]saraman[/bold] wrote:
All of the nations MPs should have posted online a simple questionaire with one simple question. Do you want your MP to vote yes or no for gay marriages? Which ever way the vote went the MP would vote in parliament accordingly. This was too big and issue for MPs to vote on in line with their own way of thinking. Myself, I find homosexuality totally abhorant but would never condemn anyone for their chosen lifestyle. In this case though, marriage in the sense of the word should be for hetrosexuals only.[/p][/quote]My friend, if you have 'chosen' your sexuality then I feel you need help dealing with your suppressed bisexual or homosexual feeling.
Sexuality is not chosen, a gay person cannot help being gay as much as you cannot help being straight.
In 20 years time people will look back on this as such a non issue and grand children will look upon their grandparents with same embarrassment that people do with the racist older generation of today.
I'm proud the majority of MPs chose to stand on the right side of history.mmmm cakes

saraman wrote…

All of the nations MPs should have posted online a simple questionaire with one simple question. Do you want your MP to vote yes or no for gay marriages? Which ever way the vote went the MP would vote in parliament accordingly. This was too big and issue for MPs to vote on in line with their own way of thinking. Myself, I find homosexuality totally abhorant but would never condemn anyone for their chosen lifestyle. In this case though, marriage in the sense of the word should be for hetrosexuals only.

My friend, if you have 'chosen' your sexuality then I feel you need help dealing with your suppressed bisexual or homosexual feeling.

Sexuality is not chosen, a gay person cannot help being gay as much as you cannot help being straight.

In 20 years time people will look back on this as such a non issue and grand children will look upon their grandparents with same embarrassment that people do with the racist older generation of today.

I'm proud the majority of MPs chose to stand on the right side of history.

Score: 0

Fight_Back
12:35pm Wed 6 Feb 13

saraman wrote…

All of the nations MPs should have posted online a simple questionaire with one simple question. Do you want your MP to vote yes or no for gay marriages? Which ever way the vote went the MP would vote in parliament accordingly. This was too big and issue for MPs to vote on in line with their own way of thinking. Myself, I find homosexuality totally abhorant but would never condemn anyone for their chosen lifestyle. In this case though, marriage in the sense of the word should be for hetrosexuals only.

"chosen lifestyle" .... are you for real ???

[quote][p][bold]saraman[/bold] wrote:
All of the nations MPs should have posted online a simple questionaire with one simple question. Do you want your MP to vote yes or no for gay marriages? Which ever way the vote went the MP would vote in parliament accordingly. This was too big and issue for MPs to vote on in line with their own way of thinking. Myself, I find homosexuality totally abhorant but would never condemn anyone for their chosen lifestyle. In this case though, marriage in the sense of the word should be for hetrosexuals only.[/p][/quote]"chosen lifestyle" .... are you for real ???Fight_Back

saraman wrote…

All of the nations MPs should have posted online a simple questionaire with one simple question. Do you want your MP to vote yes or no for gay marriages? Which ever way the vote went the MP would vote in parliament accordingly. This was too big and issue for MPs to vote on in line with their own way of thinking. Myself, I find homosexuality totally abhorant but would never condemn anyone for their chosen lifestyle. In this case though, marriage in the sense of the word should be for hetrosexuals only.

"chosen lifestyle" .... are you for real ???

Score: 0

Cyril Bolleaux
12:49pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Andy R wrote…

Cyril Bolleaux wrote…

Andy R wrote…

Cyril Bolleaux wrote…

Lucas is wrong as usual. Every has the same rights at present. It is about changing the definition of marriage. It is significant that people who are usually hostile to marriage have supported this measure. They recognise it will weaken marriage. We have already seen that in the Green Party you are forbidden from exercising your conscience on this issue. The next step will be legalising the practice of men purchasing babies and depriving them of their mothers.

Please.....no-one report this post. It's offensive, but also too deeply hilarious to lose.....

What is offensive about it? If you are referring to the last sentence then this is already happening.

One assumes you are referring to surrogacy? This is legal in the UK and has been for some time. All sorts of people have become parents through surrogacy. The fact that you only regard it as an issue if a gay couple do it tells its own story.......

No, surrogacy involves a woman or man who cannot conceive. Two men can never conceive together. That is why I refer to two men purchasing a child. This is not and never has been legal and breaks the UK Convention on the Child.That you think it is OK speaks volumes about you.

[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Cyril Bolleaux[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyril Bolleaux[/bold] wrote: Lucas is wrong as usual. Every has the same rights at present. It is about changing the definition of marriage. It is significant that people who are usually hostile to marriage have supported this measure. They recognise it will weaken marriage. We have already seen that in the Green Party you are forbidden from exercising your conscience on this issue. The next step will be legalising the practice of men purchasing babies and depriving them of their mothers.[/p][/quote]Please.....no-one report this post. It's offensive, but also too deeply hilarious to lose.....[/p][/quote]What is offensive about it? If you are referring to the last sentence then this is already happening.[/p][/quote]One assumes you are referring to surrogacy? This is legal in the UK and has been for some time. All sorts of people have become parents through surrogacy. The fact that you only regard it as an issue if a gay couple do it tells its own story.......[/p][/quote]No, surrogacy involves a woman or man who cannot conceive. Two men can never conceive together. That is why I refer to two men purchasing a child. This is not and never has been legal and breaks the UK Convention on the Child.That you think it is OK speaks volumes about you.Cyril Bolleaux

Andy R wrote…

Cyril Bolleaux wrote…

Andy R wrote…

Cyril Bolleaux wrote…

Lucas is wrong as usual. Every has the same rights at present. It is about changing the definition of marriage. It is significant that people who are usually hostile to marriage have supported this measure. They recognise it will weaken marriage. We have already seen that in the Green Party you are forbidden from exercising your conscience on this issue. The next step will be legalising the practice of men purchasing babies and depriving them of their mothers.

Please.....no-one report this post. It's offensive, but also too deeply hilarious to lose.....

What is offensive about it? If you are referring to the last sentence then this is already happening.

One assumes you are referring to surrogacy? This is legal in the UK and has been for some time. All sorts of people have become parents through surrogacy. The fact that you only regard it as an issue if a gay couple do it tells its own story.......

No, surrogacy involves a woman or man who cannot conceive. Two men can never conceive together. That is why I refer to two men purchasing a child. This is not and never has been legal and breaks the UK Convention on the Child.That you think it is OK speaks volumes about you.

Score: 0

Andy R
1:27pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Such utter Bolleaux from Bolleaux.

Surrogacy is perfectly legal in this country, but not for commercial gain. Commercial surrogacy is legal in lots of countries including several US states. Personally I can see arguments both ways about it being on a commercial footing, but as you've just confirmed, you only have a problem if it's two men doing it.

Stop wriggling.

Such utter Bolleaux from Bolleaux.
Surrogacy is perfectly legal in this country, but not for commercial gain. Commercial surrogacy is legal in lots of countries including several US states. Personally I can see arguments both ways about it being on a commercial footing, but as you've just confirmed, you only have a problem if it's two men doing it.
Stop wriggling.Andy R

Such utter Bolleaux from Bolleaux.

Surrogacy is perfectly legal in this country, but not for commercial gain. Commercial surrogacy is legal in lots of countries including several US states. Personally I can see arguments both ways about it being on a commercial footing, but as you've just confirmed, you only have a problem if it's two men doing it.

Stop wriggling.

Score: 0

Surely not!
1:43pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Well the bill passed. The sky didn't fall in. Next.

Well the bill passed. The sky didn't fall in. Next.Surely not!

Well the bill passed. The sky didn't fall in. Next.

Score: 0

Cyril Bolleaux
2:23pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Andy R wrote…

Such utter Bolleaux from Bolleaux. Surrogacy is perfectly legal in this country, but not for commercial gain. Commercial surrogacy is legal in lots of countries including several US states. Personally I can see arguments both ways about it being on a commercial footing, but as you've just confirmed, you only have a problem if it's two men doing it. Stop wriggling.

Surrogacy does not involve two men and is not legal. I do have a problem with two men having a child produced to order with the deliberate intention of removing that child from its mother. If you are in favour of that then, as I said, that says a lot about you and your "liberal" values.

[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote:
Such utter Bolleaux from Bolleaux. Surrogacy is perfectly legal in this country, but not for commercial gain. Commercial surrogacy is legal in lots of countries including several US states. Personally I can see arguments both ways about it being on a commercial footing, but as you've just confirmed, you only have a problem if it's two men doing it. Stop wriggling.[/p][/quote]Surrogacy does not involve two men and is not legal. I do have a problem with two men having a child produced to order with the deliberate intention of removing that child from its mother. If you are in favour of that then, as I said, that says a lot about you and your "liberal" values.Cyril Bolleaux

Andy R wrote…

Such utter Bolleaux from Bolleaux. Surrogacy is perfectly legal in this country, but not for commercial gain. Commercial surrogacy is legal in lots of countries including several US states. Personally I can see arguments both ways about it being on a commercial footing, but as you've just confirmed, you only have a problem if it's two men doing it. Stop wriggling.

Surrogacy does not involve two men and is not legal. I do have a problem with two men having a child produced to order with the deliberate intention of removing that child from its mother. If you are in favour of that then, as I said, that says a lot about you and your "liberal" values.

Score: 0

One View
2:27pm Wed 6 Feb 13

The definition of many words have changed over time and will continue to do so, go on, do an Internet search!
I think the change in definition marriage is a positive step.
How could we have had allow ourselves as an educated, developed & enlightened country to have said no?
It would have been hypocritical to pass comment on the treatment of other country's citizens by their leaders again in terms of working towards equal treatment and respect for human beings.

The definition of many words have changed over time and will continue to do so, go on, do an Internet search!
I think the change in definition marriage is a positive step.
How could we have had allow ourselves as an educated, developed & enlightened country to have said no?
It would have been hypocritical to pass comment on the treatment of other country's citizens by their leaders again in terms of working towards equal treatment and respect for human beings.One View

The definition of many words have changed over time and will continue to do so, go on, do an Internet search!
I think the change in definition marriage is a positive step.
How could we have had allow ourselves as an educated, developed & enlightened country to have said no?
It would have been hypocritical to pass comment on the treatment of other country's citizens by their leaders again in terms of working towards equal treatment and respect for human beings.

Score: 0

Cyril Bolleaux
2:42pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Cyril Bolleaux wrote…

Andy R wrote…

Such utter Bolleaux from Bolleaux. Surrogacy is perfectly legal in this country, but not for commercial gain. Commercial surrogacy is legal in lots of countries including several US states. Personally I can see arguments both ways about it being on a commercial footing, but as you've just confirmed, you only have a problem if it's two men doing it. Stop wriggling.

Surrogacy does not involve two men and is not legal. I do have a problem with two men having a child produced to order with the deliberate intention of removing that child from its mother. If you are in favour of that then, as I said, that says a lot about you and your "liberal" values.

Apologies, I have discovered you are correct and that this has been legal since 2010. I think that this is even worse than changing the definition of marriage. My views on this vile practice have not changed. What a sick world where men deliberately deprive a child of its mother. The UN convention on the child states that the interest of the child are paramount. How does that reconcile with depriving a child of its mother?

[quote][p][bold]Cyril Bolleaux[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: Such utter Bolleaux from Bolleaux. Surrogacy is perfectly legal in this country, but not for commercial gain. Commercial surrogacy is legal in lots of countries including several US states. Personally I can see arguments both ways about it being on a commercial footing, but as you've just confirmed, you only have a problem if it's two men doing it. Stop wriggling.[/p][/quote]Surrogacy does not involve two men and is not legal. I do have a problem with two men having a child produced to order with the deliberate intention of removing that child from its mother. If you are in favour of that then, as I said, that says a lot about you and your "liberal" values.[/p][/quote]Apologies, I have discovered you are correct and that this has been legal since 2010. I think that this is even worse than changing the definition of marriage. My views on this vile practice have not changed. What a sick world where men deliberately deprive a child of its mother. The UN convention on the child states that the interest of the child are paramount. How does that reconcile with depriving a child of its mother?Cyril Bolleaux

Cyril Bolleaux wrote…

Andy R wrote…

Such utter Bolleaux from Bolleaux. Surrogacy is perfectly legal in this country, but not for commercial gain. Commercial surrogacy is legal in lots of countries including several US states. Personally I can see arguments both ways about it being on a commercial footing, but as you've just confirmed, you only have a problem if it's two men doing it. Stop wriggling.

Surrogacy does not involve two men and is not legal. I do have a problem with two men having a child produced to order with the deliberate intention of removing that child from its mother. If you are in favour of that then, as I said, that says a lot about you and your "liberal" values.

Apologies, I have discovered you are correct and that this has been legal since 2010. I think that this is even worse than changing the definition of marriage. My views on this vile practice have not changed. What a sick world where men deliberately deprive a child of its mother. The UN convention on the child states that the interest of the child are paramount. How does that reconcile with depriving a child of its mother?

Score: 0

Sussex jim
4:17pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Why should homosexuals want to get married? They already have the Civil Partnership system. As one MP sugested yesterday, there are only a few thousand couples who want this, out of a total population of 60M and rising.
I suggest that they are exhibitionists.
I carry out various practices that the others find offensive but which do no harm to them; for example, I pick my nose, and urinate alongside the road in the country, but discreetly when no one is looking.
Why cannot homos simply keep themselves to themselves?

Why should homosexuals want to get married? They already have the Civil Partnership system. As one MP sugested yesterday, there are only a few thousand couples who want this, out of a total population of 60M and rising.
I suggest that they are exhibitionists.
I carry out various practices that the others find offensive but which do no harm to them; for example, I pick my nose, and urinate alongside the road in the country, but discreetly when no one is looking.
Why cannot homos simply keep themselves to themselves?Sussex jim

Why should homosexuals want to get married? They already have the Civil Partnership system. As one MP sugested yesterday, there are only a few thousand couples who want this, out of a total population of 60M and rising.
I suggest that they are exhibitionists.
I carry out various practices that the others find offensive but which do no harm to them; for example, I pick my nose, and urinate alongside the road in the country, but discreetly when no one is looking.
Why cannot homos simply keep themselves to themselves?

Score: 0

dawind
4:55pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Sussex jim wrote…

Why should homosexuals want to get married? They already have the Civil Partnership system. As one MP sugested yesterday, there are only a few thousand couples who want this, out of a total population of 60M and rising.
I suggest that they are exhibitionists.
I carry out various practices that the others find offensive but which do no harm to them; for example, I pick my nose, and urinate alongside the road in the country, but discreetly when no one is looking.
Why cannot homos simply keep themselves to themselves?

You ask why gays should want to marry,
Errr...for the same reason as anyone else.... if that offends you.. don't marry a gay!

[quote][p][bold]Sussex jim[/bold] wrote:
Why should homosexuals want to get married? They already have the Civil Partnership system. As one MP sugested yesterday, there are only a few thousand couples who want this, out of a total population of 60M and rising.
I suggest that they are exhibitionists.
I carry out various practices that the others find offensive but which do no harm to them; for example, I pick my nose, and urinate alongside the road in the country, but discreetly when no one is looking.
Why cannot homos simply keep themselves to themselves?[/p][/quote]You ask why gays should want to marry,
Errr...for the same reason as anyone else.... if that offends you.. don't marry a gay!dawind

Sussex jim wrote…

Why should homosexuals want to get married? They already have the Civil Partnership system. As one MP sugested yesterday, there are only a few thousand couples who want this, out of a total population of 60M and rising.
I suggest that they are exhibitionists.
I carry out various practices that the others find offensive but which do no harm to them; for example, I pick my nose, and urinate alongside the road in the country, but discreetly when no one is looking.
Why cannot homos simply keep themselves to themselves?

You ask why gays should want to marry,
Errr...for the same reason as anyone else.... if that offends you.. don't marry a gay!

Score: 0

imnotpc
7:14pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Absolutely disgusting.Still on the plus side everyone knows that no matter how you dress it up its never going to be considered normal or right.Other countries must look at us and think wtf?

Absolutely disgusting.Still on the plus side everyone knows that no matter how you dress it up its never going to be considered normal or right.Other countries must look at us and think wtf?imnotpc

Absolutely disgusting.Still on the plus side everyone knows that no matter how you dress it up its never going to be considered normal or right.Other countries must look at us and think wtf?

Score: 0

a person
7:55pm Wed 6 Feb 13

dawind wrote…

Sussex jim wrote…

Why should homosexuals want to get married? They already have the Civil Partnership system. As one MP sugested yesterday, there are only a few thousand couples who want this, out of a total population of 60M and rising.
I suggest that they are exhibitionists.
I carry out various practices that the others find offensive but which do no harm to them; for example, I pick my nose, and urinate alongside the road in the country, but discreetly when no one is looking.
Why cannot homos simply keep themselves to themselves?

You ask why gays should want to marry,
Errr...for the same reason as anyone else.... if that offends you.. don't marry a gay!

Well it does seem as though a lot of people marry because ..

There comes a time in a relationship when the time is right to take the
relationship to the next level ..

Also many people get married because they want to start a family..

It is assumed it is the brides special day , and the wedding dress
costs a fortune.

And everyone enjoys a party.

[quote][p][bold]dawind[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Sussex jim[/bold] wrote:
Why should homosexuals want to get married? They already have the Civil Partnership system. As one MP sugested yesterday, there are only a few thousand couples who want this, out of a total population of 60M and rising.
I suggest that they are exhibitionists.
I carry out various practices that the others find offensive but which do no harm to them; for example, I pick my nose, and urinate alongside the road in the country, but discreetly when no one is looking.
Why cannot homos simply keep themselves to themselves?[/p][/quote]You ask why gays should want to marry,
Errr...for the same reason as anyone else.... if that offends you.. don't marry a gay![/p][/quote]Well it does seem as though a lot of people marry because ..
There comes a time in a relationship when the time is right to take the
relationship to the next level ..
Also many people get married because they want to start a family..
It is assumed it is the brides special day , and the wedding dress
costs a fortune.
And everyone enjoys a party.a person

dawind wrote…

Sussex jim wrote…

Why should homosexuals want to get married? They already have the Civil Partnership system. As one MP sugested yesterday, there are only a few thousand couples who want this, out of a total population of 60M and rising.
I suggest that they are exhibitionists.
I carry out various practices that the others find offensive but which do no harm to them; for example, I pick my nose, and urinate alongside the road in the country, but discreetly when no one is looking.
Why cannot homos simply keep themselves to themselves?

You ask why gays should want to marry,
Errr...for the same reason as anyone else.... if that offends you.. don't marry a gay!

Well it does seem as though a lot of people marry because ..

There comes a time in a relationship when the time is right to take the
relationship to the next level ..

Also many people get married because they want to start a family..

It is assumed it is the brides special day , and the wedding dress
costs a fortune.

And everyone enjoys a party.

Score: 0

a person
8:03pm Wed 6 Feb 13

If the law does change then I think it is only fair that straight people
should be allowed to have a civil partnership.
I don’t see why a straight couple can not have the financial benefits
that a civil partnership couple has.

If the law does change then I think it is only fair that straight people
should be allowed to have a civil partnership.
I don’t see why a straight couple can not have the financial benefits
that a civil partnership couple has.a person

If the law does change then I think it is only fair that straight people
should be allowed to have a civil partnership.
I don’t see why a straight couple can not have the financial benefits
that a civil partnership couple has.

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standards Organisation's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about the editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here